Johnson v. Mai

Opinion

1 2 3 4 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-00827-BLF (VKD) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 10 v. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 11 CHI MATL et al., Re: Dkt. No. 53 Defendants. qa 12

13 On August 20, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff Scott Johnson’s motion to compel

v 14 || discovery responses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and ordered Mr. Johnson to O 15 submit an application for attorneys’ fees and costs that “include[s] information sufficient for the © 16 || Court to determine that the fees and costs claimed are reasonable.” Dkt. No. 50 at 2. On

17 September 3, 2020, Mr. Johnson filed a declaration from one of his attorneys stating only that her

18 billing rate is $350 per hour and seeking fees in the amount of $1,470. Dkt. No. 53. Because this 19 declaration does not include information sufficient for the Court to determine whether the request 20 is reasonable, the Court denies Mr. Johnson’s request. See Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Dev., No. 21 } C-09-04024 JSW (DMR), 2011 WL 588145, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2011) (describing 22 requirements for assessing reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs); see also Johnson v. Baird Lands, 23 Inc., No. 18-cv-05365-VKD, 2020 WL 3833278, at *2—5 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2020) (discussing 24 billing rates for attorneys of different levels of experience in ADA matters). 26 Dated: September 4, 2020 27 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge